Standing Committee B

[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]

Gambling Bill

Roger Gale: I have not, of course, had an opportunity to read this morning's debate, but I have been briefed. The two amendments that we are discussing are relatively narrow. My understanding is that the Minister's response has been fairly wide-ranging and that some interesting arguments have been introduced.
 It is fair to tell the Committee at this stage that I propose to broaden the debate to allow discussion of slightly wider issues relating to the clause on the understanding that I shall not then permit a clause stand part debate.

Clause 9 - Betting: general

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 25, in 
clause 9, page 5, line 3, at beginning insert 'Subject to subsection (1A),'.—[Mr. Hawkins.]

Roger Gale: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendment:
 No. 26, in 
clause 9, page 5, line 6, at end insert— 
 '(1A) But ''betting'' does not include making or accepting a bet on the outcome of a race which involves placing money on any horse or greyhound to lose the race.'.
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Richard Caborn: I was about to conclude by saying that we cannot accept amendments Nos. 25 and 26, which would effectively remove certain events from the regulatory regime and are neither appropriate nor desirable. Therefore, I ask the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) to withdraw his amendment.

Richard Page: May I say, Mr. Gale, that I appreciate your ruling, which is immensely helpful to us when planning what to do with these amendments?
 The Minister, in a cavalier fashion, threw in a few minor comments in his response to the amendment, such as a bit of registration, a bit of licensing and ''Let's move on quickly, lads.'' Unfortunately for him, one or two hon. Members picked up on his points. Can he be a little broader in what he says and throw a little more light on the scene? The debate has been quite heated and two or three throwaway comments must be fleshed out a little before we can go further. 
 In his evidence to the scrutiny Committee, the chief executive of the British Association of British Bookmakers, Mr. Kelly, was asked whether he had a view on what 
'' 'in the course of a business' ought to mean and''
 whether it should 
''be made clear on the face of the Bill?''
 Mr. Kelly replied: 
''One of the deficiencies in the current legislation is that there is an ambiguity surrounding that particular phrase''—
 I do not think that anyone has a problem with registration. When someone clocks in with an account, they fill in whether they are an owner, trainer or jockey and provide any other relevant information to enable a more effective audit trail. Is the Minister suggesting that ordinary bookmakers with bookmaker's accounts will require the same information from their customers when they register? 
 While the Minister is chewing on those points, I return to the question of having to obtain a licence to operate. If someone operates an exchange account without parallel access to a bookmaker's account or another account, there is a difficulty because they are running a straight book, which anyone could do, without the bookmaker's advantage of being able to judge the odds to their benefit. In a two-horse race, a bookmaker does not give even odds on both. One horse will be so many points on and the other will be a few points against. There is a margin for the bookmaker who is operating the book. The position for betting exchanges is entirely different. We are not dealing with apples and pears and I ask the Minister to consider the point. 
 Bookmakers need a permit because they deal with the public. I mentioned this before we adjourned for lunch. Betting exchanges, however, do not have exactly that responsibility, so I do not see how giving licences to exchange users will provide any more advantage than already exists, unless the hand of the Treasury and the Inland Revenue is involved and they are saying, ''Ah, if someone is using this system and making a profit, they should be paying a form of tax.'' That is why I ask the Minister to come clean and not just throw out a few casual words and try to move on as quickly as possible. I can see his mental feet working like mad under the desk to try to get away from the problem, but Opposition Members will return to the matter to ask why if there is not a revenue consequence he wants such a system.

Richard Caborn: The hon. Gentleman knows that taxation is a matter for the Treasury and not for this Standing Committee. Whatever taxation system we have, it will be the responsibility of the Treasury. Other than the collective responsibility of the Government, there has to the best of my knowledge been no undue influence by the Treasury.

Malcolm Moss: Will the Minister give way?

Richard Caborn: I will in a moment; let me just deal with one or two points raised by the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page).
 On registration, we have been round the course before. To think that we are running away from the whole question of exchanges is a little ludicrous, to say the least. The subject has probably been debated both here and in other places ad nauseam. At some stage, one has to come to some decisions. As I said this 
 morning, one reason for the Bill is the need to deal with the ever-moving world that we live in, which has been affected by the movement of information electronically. This sector, this sport, this industry is no different from many others. We have to manage it, which is why the Bill is before Parliament. Exchanges are but one element of the massive changes that have taken place as a result of new technologies. That is why we are doing what we are in the clause. 
 Registration means proof of name and address and taking payment details. I cannot go beyond what I said on the question of the definition of ''business''. We have given that to the best of our ability. If people want to put their own interpretation on it, they will, but I have given what we believe to be the definitions of business and registration.

Richard Page: I understand exactly what the Minister is saying, but I am trying to make the point that, on a betting exchange, he could not lay a book as bookmakers can during their ordinary race course activities. That is a fundamental difference. I just wonder why the Minister is skirting around the issue. People cannot lay a book on a betting exchange, but one can if one has a bookmaker's licence and is operating, say, on a course, and as a result take a margin of profit. On a betting exchange, people can lay a 95 or 97 per cent. book, but not a 100 per cent. book. Therefore, if people do those things, they will eventually lose money.

Richard Caborn: I must admit that I do not follow all the hon. Gentleman's arguments. I return to the point about registration and taxation. The answer to the question that I think that I was asked is no. Registration is there to assist integrity and support the gambling commission in excluding unfair bets. There have been many discussions with the industry—including the Association of British Bookmakers—on that. I am led to believe that all the bodies are positive and think that the proposals will work. If there are things that do not work and if some of the issues that hon. Members have raised do arise—probably not the worst-case scenarios—the gambling commission has the powers to deal with that. We have come to a judgment and that is reflected in the Bill.
 Exchanges have been debated ad nauseam; they were a major part of the pre-legislative Committee's scrutiny. It did not come to a decision in any definitive way; it wanted to revisit the matter, because it was not as black and white as some people would have us believe. That was the situation, and the substance of the explanation I gave this morning and this afternoon. The amendment would not take us any further forward, and I ask that it be withdrawn.

Nick Hawkins: I am glad that I tabled such probing amendments, because they have produced an absolutely fascinating debate. We shall have at a later stage to return to the issues raised, particularly those raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire. The House will have to return to them on Third Reading, and they will have to be dealt with in another place when the
 Bill, whatever its final form, leaves the House of Commons.
 I had hoped that tabling probing amendments would open up a discussion on betting exchanges, and I have clearly succeeded in doing so. There was a little difference between what the Minister said this morning in his throwaway remarks about licensing and what he has just said, and my hon. Friend has just confirmed that that was his reaction, too. There may have been some more mature considerations during the luncheon Adjournment. 
 My hon. Friend referred to some of the issues raised by the Minister during this widened debate, in particular the evidence given to the scrutiny Committee on which my hon. Friend sat. I am reminded by him to examine again what was said by the Association of British Bookmakers witness in evidence to the Joint Committee on 20 January: 
''Our concern is that we have people acting as bookmakers who are not licensed, who have not passed the fit and proper test, who can be located anywhere in the country and could be anyone from the local vicar to the local Mafiosi. We do not know who they are. They are driving a coach and horses through the licensing system''.
 That goes to the heart of the licensing issues, which all parliamentarians have to consider carefully when we examine the Government's proposals. The Government will have to put a lot more flesh on the bones. My probing amendments have produced a useful debate and, on the clear understanding that we shall return to the wider issue, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 - Betting: prize competitions

Richard Caborn: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in
clause 11, page 5, line 30, leave out 'he guesses' and insert 
 'participants are required to guess'.
 This is merely a drafting amendment. Its purpose is to clarify that clause 11 does not apply to knowledge competitions. The amendment makes it clear that the clause applies only to such competitions where all participants are required to guess or predict the answer. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 - Betting: Prize Competitions: Definition of Payment to Enter

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 63, in
schedule 1, page 151, line 10, leave out 'includes' and insert 'is'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 56, in 
schedule 2, page 153, line 3, leave out 'includes' and insert 'is'.

Malcolm Moss: Amendments Nos. 63, 56 and the others in the group, if I might call it that—

Roger Gale: Order. There are only two amendments in this group, which are amendments Nos. 63 and 56. There are others grouped further on under the schedule. As I usually say at this point, I am perfectly happy to have a wide-ranging debate on the amendments—if that suits hon. Members on both sides of the Committee—as long as it is clearly understood that there will not be a stand part debate afterwards.

Malcolm Moss: I am grateful for your directions, Mr. Gale. I simply wanted to alert the Committee to the fact that some of the amendments relate to schedule 1, but that quite a few of the amendments I tabled are to schedule 2. I will discuss them under schedule 1, however. My point is that schedules 1 and 2 are pretty much the same, except that the former refers to prize competitions and the latter to lotteries. The principles that I discuss relate to both but appear first in schedule 1.
 Amendment No. 63 is a textual change. It takes out ''include'' and replaces it with ''is'' in order to firm up the three conditions that must be met to participate in the arrangement. The conditions are found in sub-paragraph (a), ''paying money'', sub-paragraph (b), ''transferring money's worth'' and sub-paragraph (c), 
''paying for goods or services at a price or rate that reflects the opportunity to participate''.
 It has been asked why ''include'' should relate to those conditions when there does not seem to be any other means of making a payment, donation or contribution to participate in the game or lottery. Rather than use ''include'', would it not be stronger to use ''is''? It clearly defines what is really meant.

Richard Caborn: I am afraid that I cannot see any merit in either amendment. They seek to tinker to no good effect with schedules 1 and 2. Although in reality people will be required to pay to enter a betting prize competition, amendment No. 63 would result in the competition falling outside the scope of the regulation if the payment took some form other than those set out in paragraph 2. I cannot forecast what form that would be, but it would be unwise to exclude the possibility of new payment media or mechanisms being developed by the gambling industry.
 Although people in reality will have to pay to enter a lottery, amendment No. 56 would result in the lottery falling outside the scope of the regulation if the payment took some form other than those set out in paragraph 2. Again, I cannot forecast what form that might be, but it would be unwise to exclude the possibility of new payment media or mechanisms being developed by the gambling industry. 
 We are trying to future-proof the provisions as we go through them, and this is yet another example of that. With that, I ask the Committee to reject the amendments.

Malcolm Moss: I am grateful for the Minister's explanation, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 64, in
schedule 1, page 151, line 13, leave out 'reflects' and insert 
 'is enhanced or increased in a manner directly attributable to'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 65, in 
schedule 1, page 151, line 29, leave out 'does not reflect' and insert 
 'is not enhanced or increased in a manner directly attributable to'.
 Amendment No. 57, in 
schedule 2, page 153, line 6, leave out 'reflects' and insert 
 'is enhanced or increased in a manner directly attributable to.'.
 Amendment No. 58, in 
schedule 2, page 153, line 21, leave out from 'which' to 'and' in line 22 and insert 
 'is not enhanced or increased in a manner directly attributable to the opportunity to participate in an arrangement.'.

Malcolm Moss: Amendments Nos. 64 and 65 refer to schedule 1 and amendment No. 57 refers to schedule 2. The reason that we have tabled them is consistency. Without them, the Government's intention to adopt the so-called New Zealand model could be frustrated or indeed negated. In that model, draws tied to a product promotion do not have to be free to enter as long as the cost of entering them is no more than the cost of the product. Amendment No. 58, relating to schedule 2, would remove the words
''does not reflect the opportunity to enter a lottery''
 and replace them with 
''is not enhanced or increased in a manner directly attributable to the opportunity to participate in an arrangement.''
 The difficulties surrounding the use of the term ''normal rate'' were well aired in the scrutiny Committee, when Susanna Fitzgerald QC and Philip Circus, legal advisers to the Institute of Sales Promotion, gave oral evidence. The issue was covered in detail and their responses are set out in questions 1629, 1630 and 1631 to that Committee. I quote Mr. Circus at the scrutiny Committee: 
''It is virtually impossible in the majority of cases to establish what the 'normal' price [for goods] is.''
 We concur with that view. 
 We do not wish to take up the Committee's time by running through the difficulties in defining ''normal price'', but I provide one example to establish the existence of such difficulties. How does one define the normal rate in price of a product that has only just reached the market and, therefore, has no trading history to show that its price was not inflated to cover the cost of running a competition? 
 The Government's intention in the schedules is clearly to protect consumers from those promoters who openly flout the spirit of those rules that we referred to as the ''New Zealand rules''. It is right and proper that that is done. We think that our proposed revision would help to capture what the Government intend—namely, to ensure that the prices of products are not inflated by unscrupulous operators to cover the cost of running the competition. Therefore, the objective of the amendments is to remove the uncertainty about what constitutes the ''normal rate'' 
 while ensuring that consumers are protected, by making certain that operators of prize competitions cannot artificially inflate the prices of the product to cover the cost of running the competition.

Richard Caborn: Again, I cannot see merit in any of the amendments in this group. I think that they seek to tinker, to no real effect, with schedules 1 and 2. Amendments Nos. 64, 65, 57 and 58 seek to lengthen that part of the definition that covers cases where people have to pay extra for a product to enter a prize competition. The words in the amendments do not make the schedule any clearer—they just make it longer—and, by introducing the concept of direct attributability, they introduce additional and unnecessary complexity and scope for legal argument. The word ''reflects'' in the draft clearly encompasses payments that are announced or increased. With that explanation, I ask the Committee to reject the amendments.

Malcolm Moss: We hear what the Minister says. I do not think that he addressed all my points. Those points did not come off the top of my head, but were put to us by QCs who considered the law in this context. While I do not want to prolong the debate, the issue is something that the Minister and his team might reflect on to make sure that their legal advice is spot on.

Richard Caborn: I probably did not give a full enough answer about the expert legal advice that was given to the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee. I return to the point that it is possible for the gambling commission to establish the normal price. If expert evidence is needed, the commission can get that evidence and act on it. In my view, that would be a sensible approach. The fact that such a provision is not included in the Bill is not important because the gambling commission has powers to call for expert advice or evidence and to act on it.

Malcolm Moss: That was helpful. We now have it on the record that there is a backstop in the form of the gambling commission. I am grateful to the Minister for those words of clarification. In view of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 66, in
schedule 1, page 152, line 6, after 'pay', insert 
 'the promoter or an associate of the promoter.'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 59, in 
schedule 2, page 153, line 30, after 'pay', insert 
 'the promoter or an associate of the promoter'.

Malcolm Moss: The amendments refer to similar situations and seek to protect respectable promoters of competitions for which there may be entirely legitimate costs associated with consumers collecting their prize, while ensuring that operators could not possibly benefit financially from such costs. Consumers would still be protected from the type of scam that was described in other places—certainly in
 the scrutiny Committee—but also have the opportunity to win worthwhile prizes. Without the amendment, all sorts of meaningful prizes might be outlawed.
 By way of illustration and to help the Committee, perhaps I could give some examples. Could a car be offered as a prize if the insurance and road fund licence had to be paid by the winner, or would that scheme be considered a lottery on the basis that payment of the insurance would be regarded as payment to participate? Suppose someone won a competition to go to a concert, perhaps in Sheffield. In order to take possession of their prize—to attend the concert—they must pay the associated costs of travelling to Sheffield, as if they wanted to go there. Would such a competition also fall foul of paragraph 7? Let us say that a person wins a prize by which they get a 50 per cent. discount on something, say a cruise. In order to take possession of their prize—to join the cruise—they would have to pay the other 50 per cent. The consumer may well consider the discount an extremely valuable prize, yet, as I interpret paragraph 7, it may be prohibited. 
 Those are the issues that have been raised with us. The question is whether the wording is accurate enough to allow for some leeway of interpretation for those prizes, games and competitions that are currently operated but which are not scams and which do not rip off the public in any way.

Richard Caborn: Amendments Nos. 66 and 59 seek to insert a requirement that payment must be made to the promoter or associate of the promoter. I can see no good reason for such a requirement. Paragraph 7 in both schedules covers people who have not yet paid anything, who are told that they have won a prize—typically left vague—and who are then asked to pay to collect it. There have been several schemes of that kind, at best dubious, in the past. People are told that they have won something, which sounds good, and then have to pay much more than the product is worth to collect it.
 Against that background, we do not want to leave loopholes for the unscrupulous. I fear that the amendments would do exactly that. They would enable the promoter to set up an arrangement under which payment was not to him but to somebody else, and it would then be a job to prove that that somebody was indeed an associate of the promoter rather than in some other kind of business or relationship. Why make regulation harder than it needs to be? Therefore, the amendment adds nothing, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it. 
 On payment to take possession of a prize, someone who won a car could take possession of it even if they had to pay the car tax to drive it. That is an example of where that may have to be done.

Malcolm Moss: I am grateful to the Minister, but he did not deal with the other examples that I gave. Paragraph 7 simply refers to
''a requirement to pay in order to take possession of a prize''.
 There could be a wide interpretation of ''pay''. Who is being paid? That is the reason for the amendment's being specific. 
 Obviously, if the promoter of the competition scam is the one to whom one must give the money, we are quite happy for that situation to be caught in the legislation. However, in the other examples of payments being made, the Bill does not say to whom, it just says ''to pay''. Our amendment is more focused on the recipient of the extra money, who is part of a scam that states, ''You have won a worthless prize but to get it you have to pay a lot more money.'' We are obviously on the side of the Government in wanting to outlaw that practice, but currently valid competitions are running in which there will be a payment of some kind before the prize comes into one's possession. I am not sure that the Minister has addressed that point.

Richard Caborn: We will reflect on that point, but if one pays to collect a prize, what matters to the consumer is the payment, not who gets it. The provision in the Bill is adequate to cover such circumstances, as well as those of a scam. If there is any validity in the argument, I will come back to the hon. Gentleman. As the provision stands, it covers the scam and the genuine payment, but I will revisit the provision with my officials and come back to the Committee if we believe that it is faulty.

Kevan Jones: Will the Bill outlaw the scam whereby to claim a prize people have to ring a premium rate phone number? Many of our constituents have complained about that, and it needs to be outlawed.

Richard Caborn: Very much so. As my hon. Friend knows, the subject has been raised on the Floor of the House by a number of colleagues. It is, to put it crudely, a rip-off, and that is why the provision is in the Bill. I want to make certain that the wording covers both eventualities—genuine payments and scams. If we believe that it can be worded differently and more strongly to reflect the sentiments expressed by hon. Members, I will consider it.

Malcolm Moss: The point is taken on board. We do not seek to allow such scams. We consider them to be covered under the heading of scam situations, and we want to see the Bill as tightly controlled as it needs to be. I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will take another look at the amendment. It was the result of strong representation from the Advertising Association, representing a large number of members who want clarification. The words that we tabled on their behalf are a means of seeking clarification rather than changing the thrust of the schedule. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 67, in
schedule 1, page 152, line 18, leave out 'neither' and insert 'no'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 68, in 
schedule 1, page 152, line 19, leave out 'nor less convenient'.
 Amendment No. 69, in 
schedule 1, page 152, line 19, after 'participating', insert 'in the arrangement'.
 Amendment No. 60, in 
schedule 2, page 154, line 1, leave out 'neither' and insert 'no'.
 Amendment No. 61, in 
schedule 2, page 154, line 2, leave out 'nor less convenient'.
 Amendment No. 62, in 
schedule 2, page 154, line 2, leave out 'entering the lottery' and insert 'participating in the arrangement'.

Malcolm Moss: Some of the amendments relate to schedule 2, but others refer to the wording of schedule 1. We feel the need to amend the first half of paragraph 8(1) in both schedules because we believe that it could fly in the face of the Government's intention to introduce the New Zealand model.
 To reiterate, that model is one in which draws tied to a product promotion do not have to be free to enter so long as the cost of entering them is no more than the cost of the product. That is because nearly every existing free route could be regarded as less convenient than the purchase route. For example, returning home to register an entry by telephone, or going online to do so, will almost always be less convenient for the consumer than simply purchasing the product on the shelf in front of them. If judges took the same view, it could well frustrate, or even negate, the Government's intention to adopt the New Zealand model in the United Kingdom. 
 Removing the words ''nor less convenient'' would make the paragraph far more workable in practice, while still allowing the Government to achieve their objectives. An additional benefit of the amendment is that it is technology-neutral because it does not attempt to rank different forms of communication, such as e-mail or phone, by degrees of convenience, because those may well vary according to the individual concerned. 
 The second half of the paragraph should refer to participating in the arrangement, not entering the lottery, because, as we noted during the debate on an earlier amendment, the Bill will redefine the meaning of ''lottery''. It is therefore more appropriate to speak in terms of an arrangement, not least for reasons of consistency.

Richard Caborn: Again, I cannot see real merit in any of the amendments in this group, which are designed to amend, to no good effect, schedules 1 and 2. Amendments Nos. 67, 68, 60 and 61 would strike out the provision under which a method of entry constitutes a requirement to pay if it is less convenient than entry with payment.
 We know that pre-entry routes to competitions are a potential source of abuse. The organisers want people to pay because that is how they make their money, so they offer free-entry routes that are designed in such a way that they attract no one to use them. That mischief is dealt with by the words that the amendments would remove. For example, there could be an opportunity to pay a specific amount to enter a competition, or to deliver the entry by hand between 3 am and 3.15 am on a given day. For some people that might involve no extra cost, but it would 
 certainly be less convenient than putting a letter in the post. The amendments would allow such scams to flourish. 
 Amendment No. 69 would add three words that make no substantive change to the clause and are completely unnecessary. Sub-paragraph (1) refers expressly to participation in an arrangement. It is therefore self-evident that subsections (1)(b) and (2) of clause 11 are concerned with the same issue. Amendment. No. 62 would change the word ''lottery'' to the words ''participate in the arrangement''—an unnecessary change. I therefore ask the Committee not to accept it.

Malcolm Moss: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Schedule 1 agreed to. 
 Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13 - Betting intermediary

Nick Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 123, in
clause 13, page 6, line 16, at end insert— 
 'either electronically or by any other means.'.
 I stress that this is a probing amendment. Adding to the clause the words that I have suggested might be useful clarification, as the clause does not make it clear that electronic betting is specifically covered. The question that I had in mind was whether the definition of ''betting intermediary'' will apply to internet service providers. No doubt the Minister can clarify the point. Once again, I am not suggesting that my own drafting is perfect; I tabled the amendment as a way of seeking clarification. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.

Richard Caborn: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman gave an explanation, because it was unclear exactly what he intended by the amendment. He is concerned to ensure that, in the definition of ''betting intermediary'' as it appears in the clause, it is explicit that the intermediary may operate either remotely, by the internet, or non-remotely, over the counter. Based on that, the amendment is entirely unnecessary. A key feature of the Bill is that gambling may be conducted by remote or non-remote means. That is set out specifically with regard to betting intermediaries, and all other types of operators, under part 5, which covers operating licences.
 Clause 61 states that there will be a specific operating licence for betting intermediaries, and clause 63 requires such a licence, in common with every other sort of operating licence, to state whether it is a remote operating licence or not. That provision makes sense only if it is possible for a betting intermediary licence to be either a remote or a non-remote operating licence. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his probing amendment.

Nick Hawkins: I am grateful to the Minister. That provides the helpful, on-the-record clarification that I was seeking, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14 - Lottery

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 53, in
clause 14, page 6, line 24, leave out 'simple.'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 54, in 
clause 14, page 6, line 29, leave out subsection (3).

Malcolm Moss: Amendment No. 54 is consequential to amendment No. 53, and would remove the whole subsection relating to complex lotteries. These are probing amendments to ask the Minister why the Bill makes a distinction between a simple lottery and a complex lottery. Subsection (3)(c) makes an addition to the definition in the case of a complex lottery, stating that
''the prizes are allocated by a series of processes''.
 I am not sure what that means, and it is the only reason given for the difference between the two lotteries. Why do we have to make a distinction between simple lotteries and complex lotteries? Surely a lottery is a lottery.

Richard Caborn: The amendments are intended to simplify the definition of ''lottery'' in the context of the arrangements that need to be included. They would remove the distinction between a simple and a complex lottery. The distinction is made in the clause for a particular reason. Lotteries may involve a group of persons paying to enter and a prize being allocated among all those persons. Those lotteries are covered by the simple lottery definition in subsection (2). Lotteries may, however, also involve a number of processes. For example, a group of people may pay to enter and after the first draw there may be a further competition, or some further competitions, to determine the ultimate winner. Those further competitions may not rely wholly on chance. They could, for example, be tie-breakers. Such lotteries are caught by the complex lottery definition in subsection (3).
 Deleting subsection (3) would therefore exclude from the definition of ''lottery'' those arrangements in which there is a draw based on chance and a subsequent competition. We want to ensure that such arrangements are regulated as lotteries under the Bill; I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees with that. If we do not do that, we risk commercial enterprises exploiting that loophole. With that explanation, I ask him to withdraw the amendment.

Malcolm Moss: There is a feeling that clause 14(3) was included because of a legal case in 1967—the Director of Public Prosecutions v. Bradfute and Associates. If so, chance formed the first stage of an arrangement
 and skill the final stage. That is pretty much what the Minister said. Will he confirm to the Committee that it was that case that brought about the Government's thinking? Is a case from 1967 relevant today?

Richard Caborn: The answers are no and no.

Malcolm Moss: I am glad to have got that on the record. One of the difficulties in interpreting the clause is that few competitions these days follow the pattern established in clause 14(3). As there are virtually no competitions of that ilk, there is some doubt about why it was relevant. The Government and the Minister seem to think that it is, in which case it is probably better that it is in than not in. On that basis, unless information contrary to that comes to my notice, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 50, in
clause 14, page 6, line 27, leave out 'members of a class' and insert 'persons who participate'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
 No. 51, in 
clause 14, page 6, line 32, leave out 'members of a class' and insert 'persons who participate.'.
 No. 52, in 
clause 14, page 7, line 2, leave out 'members of the class' and insert 'persons who participate.'.

Malcolm Moss: The issue is what the Government mean by ''members of a class''. I think that the wording ''persons who participate'' is much clearer. The amendment is a probing one to establish the definition of the words in the Bill. What do they really mean?

Richard Caborn: The amendments seek to simplify the definition of ''lottery'', but they would exclude arrangements that need to be included. The amendments change the reference to the group among whom prizes can be allocated from ''members of a class'' to ''persons who participate''.
 A lottery may involve the distribution of a prize among persons who enter the lottery, but it may also involve the distribution of prizes among a smaller group of persons. That would be the case where, for example, there are a number of ''rounds'' in a lottery, each round working on the basis of elimination. We do not want to exclude that type of lottery from the regulation. The current wording is wide enough to achieve that aim and the proposed change risks not doing so. So, to future-proof the issue, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Malcolm Moss: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendment made: No. 14, in 
clause 14, page 6, line 35, leave out subsection (4).—[Mr. Caborn.]

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 55, in
clause 14, page 7, line 4, leave out subsection (6).
 The amendment would remove subsection (6) in its entirety. It is a probing amendment. There are, obviously, reasons for the subsection to be in the 
 Bill. We understand where the Government are coming from. The Lotteries Council is concerned about the issue and has no doubt raised it with Members on both sides of the Committee. The interpretation of the subsection is important. 
 The Government are trying to make a clear distinction between certain games or competitions that require the exercise of skill or judgment and so on, and those in which, to put it nicely, there is an element of scam involved: people are drawn on and of course it costs them more and more money. If we are to pass the legislation, there must be a clear-cut interpretation in law so that the two parties—those who run the competitions and the charities' lotteries—would be happy with the interpretation that is given. We are simply saying that the wording in the clause is not as clear as it needs to be. 
 The subsection states that, in certain circumstances, skill and judgment would be disregarded and the scheme treated as if it relied wholly on chance. Such a situation would arise if the competition prevented a significant proportion of participants from receiving a prize or prevented a significant proportion of people who might want to participate from doing so. At the heart of the question is the term ''a significant proportion''. Quite what that means is unclear. Presumably, a significant proportion is somewhere between, say, 1 per cent. and 99 per cent., but where exactly does the boundary lie? 
 Equally, will not the concept of the application of skill vary from individual to individual, and how will it be possible to judge whether a significant proportion of persons had been prevented from participating in the competition? Indeed, those running the competition would presumably need to know before it commenced how many potential participants would be prevented from winning. How could they possibly know that? Proving a negative is a difficult affair at the best of times, but that requirement, if it is the intention behind the wording of the Bill, would be nigh on impossible to meet. Clause 14(6) would therefore place a significant and unnecessary administrative and legal burden on many businesses. 
 Another potential problem thrown up by subsection (6) relates to competitions that may inadvertently succeed in attracting the same number of entrants, or indeed fewer entrants, than there are prizes available, which we are reliably informed can occasionally happen. I would be grateful if the Minister would clarify whether such a competition would have to be regarded as a game of chance and, therefore, a lottery on the basis that the skill element did not prevent a significant proportion of participants from receiving a prize.

Richard Caborn: This is an interesting area, and it has been around the course many times. Amendment No. 55 would remove the test in subsection (6) for determining whether a process relied wholly on chance. Although necessarily complicated—we all acknowledge that—subsection (6) is vital to prevent lotteries from being dressed up as prize competitions and thus avoiding regulation under the Bill. That is important in terms of protection of lotteries, and we
 have seen quite a lot of it recently. That is why we must get this right, and we believe that we have.
 Examples of such so-called competitions are those in which participants are required to answer questions, the answers to which are so easy that they are almost universally known. We want such competitions to be regulated as lotteries. If we were to accept the proposed amendment, which would delete the whole of subsection (6), such competitions would continue to be run without regulation. 
 Several people have criticised the words in the Bill but no one, including the eminent QCs to whom the hon. Gentleman referred earlier, has been able to propose anything better. The matter has been much debated. Indeed, it was raised by the scrutiny Committee. It asked us to include the test and we did. The measure is the result of the response to the scrutiny Committee and we believe that it gets the balance about right.

Malcolm Moss: We share the Government's intention to prevent certain competitions from masquerading as lotteries, and I made that clear. However, a large cohort of people interpret the matter differently and are worried that because the proposal goes almost too far, it will catch legitimate competitions in the net. The Minister has not offered to go back to the drawing board.

Richard Caborn: It is unfair of the hon. Gentleman to say that. We have been back to the drawing board four or five times because we are mindful of getting the provision right. The hon. Gentleman referred to the QC who gave evidence to the scrutiny Committee and there was a long debate in the Committee. We took that on board and believe that with that process of consultation and advice we have the best provision. The deletion of subsection (6) would not enhance the position or move the matter forward. We believe that we have got the balance about right in what has been a difficult exercise. We have taken advice and held consultation and we believe that the provision is about right.

Malcolm Moss: I accept the Minister's point. I said that the amendment was a probing one. We did not like the wording of the subsection and, in suggesting that it should be deleted, we more or less invited the Government to come forward with something that makes a lot more sense to more people. If the Minister is saying that the Government have been round the houses and taken all the legal advice they could possibly take, we must take that on board. However, we reserve judgment and may revisit the matter later. I am happy with many of the Minister's responses and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Nick Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 129, in
clause 14, page 7, line 14, leave out subsection (8).
 I can be brief. This is a probing amendment. I referred earlier to my unhappiness about the number of times in this primary legislation the Government are taking powers to enable the Secretary of State to do 
 things by regulation. My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) rightly pointed out in a helpful intervention before lunch that the real problem is that we do not have much opportunity to debate statutory instruments that introduce regulations. Such debates as we have are very short and are on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. We cannot try to amend statutory instruments. They must be voted through or not and, with the Government's huge majority, they tend to be voted through. 
 I am used to Ministers standing up and saying in answer to any point that Conservative Members make, ''You're just against modernisation.'' There is a new phrase in this Committee—future-proofing. I suspect that we shall hear it a lot, including in the Minister's response to this amendment. He wants the Secretary of State to be able to respond by regulation and to say whether something is a lottery. My concern, to which I shall return when we debate the next amendment, is that we do not lose the opportunity for clarity in deciding whether something is a lottery.

Don Foster: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman as he was coming to the end of his comments, but I hope that he will address an additional concern. He is rightly concerned about the increased number of powers that the Bill gives to the Secretary of State, but I hope he agrees with me that in this proposal it is sensible to future-proof in respect of any new type of product that may come along when there is uncertainty as to whether it fits into the current definition. That being the case, does he not find it odd that under subsection (8)(a) the Secretary of State will be given the power to amend definitions in respect of existing products as covered by the earlier part of the clause?

Nick Hawkins: That intervention is helpful because the hon. Gentleman helps me to make my point. The problem is not just about future-proofing. The Secretary of State's powers go further and, as will be made clear in my next amendment, which would protect the valuable work by existing lotteries that support hospices and hospitals, I am trying to ensure some clarity to protect the worthwhile work already being done. I do not want to anticipate the next debate, however. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Minister must go a bit further than saying, as he has done, that the provision is just about future-proofing; he must justify why the Secretary of State will be able to redefine matters in primary legislation.

Richard Caborn: Subsection (8) gives the Secretary of State the powers to provide that specific arrangements are or are not lotteries for the purposes of the Act. It also gives the Secretary of State the powers to amend subsection (2). The powers are necessary to deal with future arrangements that we may want to regulate as lotteries but which have been crafted to fall outside the definition. If there were any doubts about how the new arrangements should be treated, subsection (8) will put the matter beyond doubt. If that subsection were removed, we would lose the ability to cater for and determine how to regulate the new types of lottery that might be developed. It would put us in an unsatisfactory position, and it would not allow us to
 act with certainty. Even at this stage, we are unable to say what the nature of developments might be or when they might take place, but we need to cater for them should they occur. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Nick Hawkins: The Minister gave me the answer that I was expecting, but with respect I do not think that he dealt with my broader point, which was amplified by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). We all saw that the Minister read out his pre-prepared brief and did not really deal with our wider point.

Don Foster: Before the hon. Gentleman generously begs leave to withdraw his amendment, I hope that he will push the Minister to get an answer to the question why subsection (8)(a) needs to be in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman will note that the Minister clearly repeated in his own words what I said in an intervention on the hon. Gentleman earlier. The Minister said the provision was necessary for new products that try to get around the definition in the Bill. I still fail to understand why, in regard to existing products, the existing definition needs to be changed and powers given to the Secretary to State to undertake the change almost at will in the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman describes.

Nick Hawkins: I agree. The hon. Gentleman anticipates me, because I was about to say before withdrawing the amendment that—if he will forgive the phrase—I would aim over the head of the Minister. I hoped that his officials had been listening carefully to this debate, and we might find the Minister ready later to go a little wider than his brief and write to the hon. Member for Bath, to me and to other members of the Committee, dealing with the point that we have made.

Richard Caborn: Any action by the Secretary of State will be in the form of a statutory instrument under the affirmative procedure, which will be open to scrutiny as it normally is. The hon. Gentleman is jumping around and looking at things that are not there. They are a figment of his vast imagination and they will have to stop there. We believe in all the safeguards and we believe that the power is right. We must ensure that the powers take account of any new products or changes to existing products. I do not know how the hon. Member for Bath interprets the provision.

Nick Hawkins: The Minister may not fully understand that the hon. Member for Bath and I are talking about the unusual way in which the Secretary of State's powers are specifically not constrained by the provisions in the earlier clauses of the Bill. That is quite unusual. We recognise the purpose of subsection (8)(b), but subsection (8)(a) basically says that the Secretary of State can in the future do whatever she likes by way of a statutory instrument under the affirmative procedure and ignore everything in subsections (1) to (7) in the primary legislation. That is a pretty wide power, and is rather unusual.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister has further muddied the waters by saying that resolution will be through the affirmative procedure, because it shows that he does not understand parliamentary procedure. There are three types of order: one below the line, against which there is no
 prayer; affirmative resolution; and negative resolution. If it is to be an affirmative resolution, that needs to be specified in the Bill.

Nick Hawkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has once again shown his mastery of the procedure of this place, for putting that on record. Perhaps it will put more pressure on the Minister, but it was, of course, the Minister who volunteered the words ''affirmative procedure''. Perhaps he does not fully understand the procedure.

Richard Caborn: Again, these are figments of the imagination. Things must catch up with the hon. Gentleman at this hour of the afternoon. It will be an affirmative resolution .

Nick Hawkins: We hear what the Minister says. No doubt, there is something—

Richard Caborn: The hon. Gentleman should refer to clause 332(4).

Nick Hawkins: That is very helpful. We are certainly clarifying the matter as we go along. Perhaps I was right to aim over the Minister's head, as it were.
 Following that debate, which was slightly more interesting than I expected when I tabled this probing amendment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Nick Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 130, in
clause 14, page 7, line 20, at end add— 
 '(9) Nothing in this section shall have effect to alter the arrangements for those lotteries which existed prior to the coming into force of this Act which exist solely for the purpose of raising funds for local hospices or hospitals.'.
 I touched briefly on this matter in the last debate, because the two matters are linked to some extent. We are going to hear a lot in our debates about grandfather rights; for example, when we consider machines in pubs or when we debate gaming machines, which is one of the big issues in the Bill. With this amendment, I seek some protection for work that I think Members on both sides of the House would recognise has usefully been done over many years by lotteries that raise money specifically for local hospices and hospitals. There may well be other good causes, but I did not want to widen the debate too much by trying to think of every local lottery that does good. 
 I thought that the amendment might attract some support, or even some further thought. I do not expect the Minister to accept it immediately, but I hope that he will at least say that he and his officials will take the idea away and see if something can be introduced on Report or beforehand, on Third Reading or in another place. 
 I think that we all agree that there are few better causes than the enormously important work that hospices have done in recent years as the hospice movement has grown. I have had the privilege of visiting a number of hospices and I know the importance of the work that they do. Some of the people who organise that valuable fund-raising for hospices are concerned that the changes to the lottery laws may threaten their lotteries. Can we have a provision that says that any lottery that is perfectly 
 valid under current law, and exists when the Bill comes into force, will be protected if it is not changed? 
 If people are able to carry on running such lotteries under the new legislation, we will keep that valuable source of fund-raising. I am sure that the Minister will accept the spirit of what I am trying to do, although my drafting may not be perfect. I hope that he will, at least, take the idea away. He may be able to reassure the Committee and me that all such hospice and hospital lotteries are completely protected, but I raise the matter because I have heard this concern expressed by several people. If the law on lotteries is being changed, the Bill should include a provision to ensure that everything that has been working well remains valid when the Bill is enacted.

Richard Caborn: As the hon. Gentleman said, he and others have been asking for that reassurance for some time. The Government fully recognise that lotteries are a popular and important means of raising money for charities and other good causes. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are fully aware of the valid contribution made by lotteries to the successful running of hospices.
 For society lotteries, the Bill in essence replicates the provisions of the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976. Lotteries run solely for charitable purposes will be permitted. They can be run by licensed or small society lotteries, or by any person who is incidental to a non-commercial event, and promoted wholly for purposes other than for private gain. 
 Clause 14 is designed simply to define lotteries and to make provisions about payment to enter them and win prizes. It does not impose any additional limits on lotteries run by societies for charitable purposes. The powers in subsection (8) deal with the new arrangement that might be developed to circumvent the ban on large-scale commercial lotteries. The Government do not intend to use those powers to prevent lotteries run solely for charitable purposes from being promoted. Thus the Bill will continue to protect lotteries that are genuinely run to collect money for good causes such as hospices. I trust that that gives hon. Members the assurance that they seek.

Bob Russell: The Minister used the phrase ''charitable purposes'' more than once. How broad is that term? I can think immediately of two fund-raising activities that are not charitable: one is the Labour party tote in Essex; the other is Colchester United lottery.

Richard Caborn: Let me give the definition, because this was widely discussed in a document published this February, which said that small society lotteries registered with local authorities will have their registration automatically converted into registration under the schedule. I am happy to repeat that: the definition also covers non-commercial societies. That is key.

Don Foster: The Minister is very helpfully placing on the record his understanding of what will happen to the lotteries mentioned by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. He will recall that there was much debate
 during consideration of the Licensing Bill some time ago about whether or not golf clubs would lose out. At that time, because of the uncertainty, he kindly produced a helpful document for all Members of Parliament to send to such clubs. I have received numerous representations about hospital and hospice lotteries, as, I suspect, have many others members of the Committee. Will the Minister agree to provide such a briefing note for us to use as a standard response to people who write to us?

Richard Caborn: The answer is yes, although I do not want a repeat of the golf club briefing note. I had to write to every ruddy golf club in this country because the matter was being whipped up.
 As I said, the document was published in February 2004, and I will ask my officials to pull out the relevant bit and stick it on the web. We will make sure that it is there, because we do not want to start a lot of hares running. We want to ensure that such lotteries understand that it is business as usual.

Nick Hawkins: This has been a very helpful, albeit short, debate. The Minister's response to my points and to the very helpful points made by the hon. Members for Colchester (Bob Russell) and for Bath has been useful.
 I have noticed that this Minister's Department—like Departments in general—seems to have adopted the policy that it is enough to put something on its website. I am not criticising the idea of putting information on the website, but I return to the request made by the hon. Member for Bath: could all hon. Members have a hard copy of whatever the Minister's officials will produce, because that is much easier for us than saying to hospice organisers throughout the country, ''You have got to look at the Department's website?'' Not all small hospices will necessarily be run by someone with the same IT capability as the Minister and his officials. Sometimes it is too easily forgotten by Departments that not everyone uses the internet in the way that Government officials do. 
 What the Minister has said is enormously helpful; I look forward to receiving the document, and I hope that it is a hard copy sent in the post to all hon. Members. There are certainly quite a few Government Members who say that they want hard copies of documents rather than having everything on the internet. A lot of our constituents feel that way, too. I understand that the Minister is saying that all existing lotteries will be protected; that is enormously helpful and will provide a lot of reassurance.

Richard Caborn: I was just thinking that I might send copies out with my Christmas cards. I do not want to go over the hon. Gentleman's head, but a copy was put in the Library in February. I hope that, besides visiting our website—a very good website—he will visit the Library, and he will get a double whammy.

Nick Hawkins: I understand entirely.

Richard Caborn: I was only joking.

Nick Hawkins: I know. What was produced in February—the serious part of the Minister's
 response—is not what the Minister is talking about now, which is a response to the point that was made by the hon. Member for Bath. I am talking about something new. It would be helpful to have the hard copy because it would enable us to reassure people—[Interruption.] I am grateful that the Minister is confirming that. Having received helpful answers, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 14, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clause 15 - Betting and gaming

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 91, in
clause 15, page 7, line 30, at end insert 
 'which shall include forecast competitions and fantasy football competitions.'.
 The amendment is designed to seek clarification that the definition includes forecast and fantasy football competitions.

Richard Caborn: The addition of forecast and fantasy football competitions by the amendment is unnecessary. Such competitions would ordinarily be treated as betting under the Bill because they fall under clause 11. Clause 15 deals with situations where a gambling transaction can be described as betting and gaming. It applies to all forms of betting. Where forecast or fantasy football competitions can be said to be gaming as well as betting, clause 15 will deal with the overlap without the need for the additional words in the amendment. As with any other overlap situation under clause 15, where there is an overlap, the transaction shall be treated as gaming. For those reasons, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Malcolm Moss: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Malcolm Moss: Under the heading of ''Betting and gaming'', I want to raise several points on a broader footing that have been put to me by the Association of British Bookmakers. There is a number of products on offer in betting offices in addition to sports betting, and I have three examples. First, ''The 49s'' is a fixed-odds betting product that offers customers the ability to bet on a televised numbers draw. Secondly, ''Rapido'' involves customers in making a selection from 80 numbers at fixed odds. Winning numbers are generated by a random number generator and displayed in the shop on a television screen. Thirdly, the Irish lottery involves bookmakers offering fixed odds on the outcome of the Irish and other foreign lotteries. I am told that those products are extremely popular and generate significant betting revenue. Turnover is estimated at £300 million-plus per annum.
 Under the present law, those are clearly defined as betting products. However, clause 15 does not make it 
 clear whether that status is to be retained. It would be helpful if the Minister confirmed that it is not the Government's intention to change the categorisation of those products that appear in betting shops. It would also be helpful if we had some steer on that, either in clause stand part or at a future date when he has had a chance to consider the individual nature of those machines.

Richard Caborn: As usual, my officials were very efficient. They told me the categories in which those board games will fall. I will read them out. ''The 49s'' is betting. Fixed-odds betting terminals are gaming. ''Rapido'' is gaming, and betting on the Irish lottery is betting. They will, therefore, fall under the definition of the Bill as they apply to betting and gaming.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17 - Lotteries and betting

Amendments made: No. 15, in 
clause 17, page 8, line 12, leave out 'entering' and insert 'participating in'.
 No. 16, in 
clause 17, page 8, line 17, leave out 'entering' and insert 'participating in'.
 No. 17, in 
'clause 17, page 8, line 26, leave out 'entering' and insert 'participating in'.—[Mr. Caborn.]
 Clause 17, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18 - Non-commercial society

Amendment proposed: No. 108, in 
clause 18, page 8, line 30, after 'society', insert 
 '(which shall include a corporation)'.—[Mr. Moss.]

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 109, in 
clause 18, page 8, line 30, at end insert 
 'or is converted to become'.
 Amendment No. 190, in 
clause 18, page 8, line 32, at end insert 'or'.
 Amendment No. 187, in 
clause 18, page 8, line 33, after 'supporting', insert 'any'.
 Amendment No. 188, in 
clause 18, page 8, line 34, leave out 
 'athletics or a cultural activity'.
 Amendment No. 191, in 
clause 18, page 8, line 34, leave out from 'activity' to end of line 35.
 Amendment No. 192, in 
clause 18, page 9, line 4, at end add— 
 '(4) A race night at which films of past horseraces are shown in order to raise funds for a voluntary organisation shall be treated as an activity of a non-commercial society.'.

Nick Hawkins: I think that I am right in rising to my feet because this group includes a number of amendments—Nos. 190, 187, 188, 191 and 192—that stand in my name. I need to explain what I had in mind.
 My concern was, first, that clause 18(1)(b) seemed to involve an unusual way of expressing the activities covered. I did not understand why athletics, which is clearly a sport and one much beloved of the Minister, who has participated in events such as the great north run, should be defined separately. The Bill mentions ''sport, athletics''. That seems unnecessary. Surely athletics, as a sport, is encompassed in sport. 
 Secondly, I was not sure whether ''cultural activity'' was too wide a term. To return to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) in the debate on Tuesday, there has been a lot of concern about national lottery money going to causes that the Community Fund thought worth while but that the majority of players of the lottery and citizens of this country did not approve of. 
 I vividly remember being asked to appear on live national television during breakfast time when I was a shadow Minister. The Community Fund had just made an extraordinarily controversial decision to fund a project dedicated to allowing illegal asylum seekers to challenge UK Government decisions. The Home Secretary was up in arms about it, as were we. If I recall correctly, national television did a poll, asking citizens to call in to vote about whether they thought that that project was an appropriate use of lottery money. They received one of the highest votes ever—90 per cent. or more—saying that it was not an appropriate use of lottery money. 
 I want to be certain that talk of non-commercial societies does not lead to a repeat performance and that we do not allow a vague phrase such as ''cultural activity'' to be used as an opportunity for money to be handed to such controversial organisations. Therefore, I seek reassurance from the Government on that issue. 
 If the provision read 
''for the purpose of enabling participation in, or of supporting, sport'',
 I, as a great sports fan and deputy chairman of the all-party group on sports, would be very pleased. I hope that the Minister will understand why I suggest that there is no need to list athletics separately from other sport. 
 Amendment No. 192 covers another point. I hope that Members on both sides of the Committee will take the matter seriously, because it comes back to some of the points that have been made, including by Labour Back Benchers in the Committee, about not preventing the kind of legitimate activity that goes on for the purposes of fundraising for, for example, political parties or other charitable causes. We have had lots of discussions about pub quizzes and that sort of thing. 
 I know that there has been quite a lot of controversy about race nights. I am sure that all members of the Committee know the kind of organisations that try to raise money in that way, 
 whether for a school, some voluntary group, or for a political party. Such nights might involve filmed horse races, which tend to be films of races in America. There is a fixed number of six runners and the arrangements operate informally. I vividly remember—it was even before coming to the House—that, for various activities in a village where I used to live, police advice had to be taken to ensure that the particular way in which the race night was organised did not contravene the betting and gaming legislation. 
 It occurred to me that, as we are talking about completely rewriting gaming legislation for the whole of the country, we ought to try to ensure that race nights are not accidentally rendered illegal. Amendment No. 192 might provide a helpful opportunity to clarify the position, as with the hospice lottery point that was made earlier. I am not suggesting that my drafting is perfect, but I hope that the Minister will understand that the amendment is in a rather different category from the other amendments in the group and that he will respond positively to what I am trying to achieve. 
 It would be helpful if the Minister reassured us, as he did recently with hospice lotteries, that race nights will be fine and perhaps that, as a result of the Bill, it will be easier for organisers of race nights to know for certain that they are not breaching the law when they organise events that can raise a lot of money for good causes, charities, or even political parties. I look forward to hearing from him about all the amendments, but about amendment No. 192 in particular.

Richard Caborn: I had a very long explanation, but now it is only a long one: my officials have cut it down a little. The present definition of ''society'' is in the 1976 Act and it includes
''any club, institution, organisation or association of persons, by whatever name called''.
 The Bill leaves ''society'' undefined, except in so far as clause 330 makes it clear that a separate branch or section of a society is to be treated as a society, so that it can promote its own lotteries if it so desires. 
 The concept of ''a society'' is inevitably very general and I have some sympathy with what I take to be the idea behind amendment No. 108. If there is an organisation or entity that is genuinely non-commercial, it is hard to see why the simple fact that it is established as a company should debar it from running a lottery or lotteries. Many charities are legally companies and already run lotteries without difficulty under the current law. From their point of view, the amendment might help to make their position more certain and would otherwise do no harm. 
 However, we need to be a little careful about the stretching of the concept of a society to include any corporation. Apart from anything else, that would allow at least some statutory corporations to run lotteries and I do not think that that would be at all welcome to the charity world, which we have been trying to protect. I therefore undertake to consider the 
 amendment further, but without giving any commitment. 
 We do not consider that the change proposed in amendment No. 109 is necessary. The definition of a non-commercial society in clause 18 is a society that is established and conducted for the purposes listed in the clause. If the purpose of a commercial society changes, the society re-establishes itself as non-commercial. It will conduct itself as a non-commercial society and will be covered by the definition in the clause. 
 Amendments Nos. 190, 187, 188, 191 and 192 make various changes to the definition of a non-commercial society that are either unnecessary or undesirable. We are grateful to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath for his explanation of the amendments, as we have been a little puzzled about the reason for them. The Government do not wish to exclude organisations that enable participation in a cultural activity from being able to run lotteries or from benefiting from the non-commercial society provision. 
 The word ''athletics'' has been included in clause 18 to avoid any doubt that such activities are covered. I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's suggested change, as there is a respectable argument that the word ''sport'' generally includes athletics. However, the 1976 Act draws a distinction between athletic sport and other games. We are therefore keen to retain the word ''athletics'' to avoid any argument that such activities have been deliberately excluded from the scope of the clause. 
 Amendments Nos. 190 and 191 would exclude societies that are not charitable and do not enable participation in sport, athletics or cultural activities, but are not established or conducted for private gain from the definition of non-commercial societies. We see no reason to exclude such societies. 
 Amendment No. 192 proposes the addition of a new subsection to clause 18. It would add to the definition of non-commercial societies, 
''a race night at which films of past horseraces are shown in order to raise funds for a voluntary organisation''.
 Although I sympathise with the amendment's intention, it is not necessary, because such events are provided for later in the Bill. If betting is involved, it will require regulations under the Bill only if it is being offered in the course of a business. That will always be a matter of fact and degree. I do not perceive any immediate problems with voluntary organisations running such race nights, provided that all the money raised goes to good causes. Such organisations should be able to rely on the non-business betting exemption. 
 In light of that explanation, I hope that the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire will not press amendment No. 108.

Nick Hawkins: What the Minister said was helpful. However, although he does not foresee any problems, I have in my files a five or six-page booklet setting out the existing law on race nights, which was given to me when police advice was taken for problems that
 occurred in a village in which I used to live. As the Minister's reply was that the position will not change and that it will always be a matter of fact and degree, following this debate I will send him my file on the complexity of race nights. Perhaps at a later stage he might provide further clarification. What he has said has been helpful, but he is saying that the position will remain the same. There have been problems in the past, and I hope that I will be able to put a case to him that he and his officials can consider.

Malcolm Moss: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Roger Gale: Some hon. Members in the nether regions of the Room are finding it difficult to hear both Front-Bench spokesmen. The remedy is in their own hands—they can move closer to the Front Benches. However, in the interests of clarity for the sake of the Official Report and the wider public, could the Front-Bench spokesmen be cognisant of that fact?
 Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3 - The Gambling Commission

Don Foster: I beg to move amendment No. 122, in
schedule 3, page 154, line 19, at end insert— 
 '1A The Secretary of State shall appoint at least one commissioner who appears to the Secretary of State to represent local authorities.'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendment:
 No. 128, in 
schedule 3, page 154, line 19, at end insert— 
 '1A The Secretary of State shall appoint at least one commissioner who appears to the Secretary of State to represent casino employees.'.

Don Foster: We are making rapid progress and I have no intention of detaining the Committee for long. All members of the Committee have said how much they welcome the establishment of the gambling commission to replace the Gaming Board, and its increased powers. We did that without a murmur—we voted clause 19 straight through with no problem. Now we come to the schedule on the details of how it should be set up and operated and who should sit on it, and surprise, surprise, the obvious set of amendments have come from hon. Members wanting to ensure that their favourite people are among the commissioners on the new body.
 I am well aware that the Minister will answer that he does not like lists because the people who are not on them are offended. I accept that he will tell me that he is sympathetic to the suggestion in my amendment that representatives of local government should serve on the commission, that he is certain that the Secretary of State will bound to ensure somebody like that will serve on the commission, and that his reply is a good enough assurance and we will all be happy. I just want to persuade him to give me that answer, which at least means a postcard to Mrs. Foster. 
 I hope that the Minister is well aware of the importance of the role that our local councillors will play in this legislation. Clause 24(4)(c), for example, refers to the importance of consultation with the LGA on guidance for local authorities. Clause 23(11)(a) talks about the importance of consultation with the LGA on codes of practice, and so it goes on. The Bill already refers to the importance of close work with those who serve in local government. 
 The Health and Safety Commission has gone even further than my suggestion: it ensures that among its commissioners there is a representative of local government—an elected councillor. There is nothing particularly onerous about my amendment; it places no great burden on the Secretary of State. I merely want an assurance from the Minister that we can be certain of the representation of at least one commissioner from local government. A postcard to Mrs. Foster at the end of a very long day would be very welcome.

Jon Cruddas: I want to comment on the representation of workers on the commission, which gives me an opportunity to make a few points about employment conditions in the new casinos. We have not discussed the regulation of the employment relationship, but we have talked a lot about the regulation of the industry in general.
 As many people are aware, there are two main unions for casino workers—the Transport and General Workers Union and the GMB. They have formed an alliance with Unite Here, the American trade union that organises in the gaming industry, to enter into early discussions with prospective investors about the setting up of new casinos. 
 It is important to consider the question of employee representation on the commission, because of the comparative experience of employment relationships and worker representation in different casinos at state level in the States. If one compares the situation in any of the 29 unorganised casinos in Mississippi with that in the 12 organised casinos in Atlantic City, one sees extraordinary differences between union and non-union wage premiums and the general terms and conditions enjoyed by people who work in the casino industry. The national gambling impact study commission stated: 
''The commission recommends to state, local and tribal governments that communities with legal gambling should look to cooperation between labor unions and management as a means of protecting job quality.''
 When considering an application, the new commission should take on board the views of staff in its deliberations as well as taking account of casino operators' previous employment practices—overseas, if necessary. There should be two representatives of the work force on the commission to represent the interests of workers in the industry. We should ensure that licences are granted to operators who will provide a decent working environment, careers and job opportunities for their staff. Many jobs will be created in the sector over the next few years, and we should seek to ensure that they are quality jobs, not 
 minimum wage jobs with few protections. Worker representation on the commission would be a positive step to ensuring that that objective is achieved.

Richard Page: I reiterate that the establishment of a gambling commission is at the heart of the Bill. If we do not get the commission and its structure right, we will be in trouble. The Gaming Board has done a marvellous job, but the role is to be expanded dramatically and the amount of money available will rise from some £4 million to between £9 million and £11 million. It is time to move on.
 The amendment puts a finger on the difficulty that faces us all. We want the gambling commission to have the flexibility to react to change and to do so through regulation, but we do not want it to be so free and flexible that it does not have firm guidelines in primary legislation. The hon. Member for Bath made a valid point. Some people should be members as of right, rather than having a membership that is too broad and flexible and that could come from any sector of the community. Representation of the local authority is particularly relevant, because such people will have experience of licensing. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath spoke about some of the problems in Guildford. I am not saying that a local authority representative would have intimate knowledge of the matter, but they would have the ability to tap into the local authority network to get the vibrations on whether an applicant for a casino licence, for example, was the right sort of person and what operating experience they had. 
 There is a delicate balance to be struck and we must try to get it right when setting up the commission. We do not want to prescribe it so tightly that it has no room to breathe and no time to move and react to changed circumstances, but nor do we want it to be so free and sloppy that anything could happen.

Kevan Jones: I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman is saying and I agree with quite a few of the points that he is making. Does he support amendment No. 128, which would put worker representatives on the commission?

Richard Page: I am sorry to say that I shall not be recommending that, because the number of organisations that could then claim such representation would become legion. If the hon. Gentleman went through the gambling industry, he could produce section after section of workers who would want representation. The commission would become a vast and unwieldy organisation.
 Local authorities cover licensing throughout the length and breadth of the land and could advise not just on casinos but on many other areas, such as how betting shops and FOBTs are performing and how GamCare's responsibility is working through in a local area. There would be so much more that a local authority representative could touch on without their role being tight, narrow and specific. My left-wing and socialist heart is sympathetic, as opposed to the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), who would be much harder and right-wing than me on such matters. I shall draw my remarks to a close with the comment 
 that a local authority representative would be a good thing.

Clive Efford: I support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Jon Cruddas). When I had the discussion with the workers' representatives from the USA, to which I referred on Tuesday, I was struck by their degree of ownership and commitment to the industry in which they were working. That came from the fact that they had good conditions of employment and a high degree of training. All staff are vetted to ensure that they are fit and proper people to work in the gambling industry. They are provided with training so that they can care for and look after customers to ensure that no one is gambling to excess. If they identify such people, they bring them to the attention of management. They are also trained to identify anyone who may be under the influence of alcohol and incapable of making a decision about gambling. They take great pride in their relationship with the industry and their commitment to it, and the value and worth that they attach to their employment would add a great deal to the commission.
 The setting of high standards of ownership in and commitment to the industry in order to ensure that it does not fall into the trap of the worst forms of exploitation, which we are concerned about, would be underlined by allowing those workers to participate in the decisions of the commission and have two representatives on it. I support amendment No. 128.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Thank you for allowing me to catch your eye, Mr. Gale. I decided to make a short speech on the schedule, because, frankly, I am getting a little bored. I urge the Minister to reject both amendments.
 Paragraph 1 does not tell us how many commissioners there will likely be. I urge that there not be too many, as a huge board becomes unwieldy and difficult for the chairman to manage. I imagine that the Secretary of State will first appoint a chairman, and then she and the chairman will have discussions as to who the other commissioners should be. Perhaps the Minister would clarify the process. 
 Whether representatives of local authorities, workers, employers, the Confederation of British Industry or anyone else I can think of who might belong to a special category, the type of people who are appointed are, sometimes, excellent, but sometimes they are put there purely because it is Buggin's turn, or because an individual body wants to get rid of someone who is a nuisance, saying ''Let us put them on that commission to get them out of the way.'' There are all sorts of reasons why reserving positions for specific categories may result in people who are not satisfactory. 
Mr. Foster rose—

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I fear that I shall disappoint Mrs. Foster, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Don Foster: Anyone who starts by saying that their contribution is based on the fact that they are getting
 bored and fails to reflect that their contribution may add to other Members' boredom is in some difficulty. Can the hon. Gentleman just remind me—I have a memory problem—about the last Bill Committee on which he and I both served, whether the Bill established a body and whether he pressed amendments to specify membership of that body? I am sure that by now he will have recalled the Bill and may wish to share that information with the Committee.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On that occasion, I was not getting bored, as the hon. Gentleman may recall. I was actively involved with that Bill, and the circumstances were different. I am sure that there were good reasons for those amendments.
 I simply say that these amendments are not a good idea, and I hope that the Minister rejects them.

Tony Banks: I wish to support the amendment. I do not have the same problem as the Minister. Settling on who will be on the commission is an important matter, and we all have our own choices. I would like someone to be appointed who would take care of the animal welfare issues that arise. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) is laughing, but the fact is that greyhounds and horses are a crucial part of the gambling industry in this country, and their welfare is a matter of concern. I am sorry that he does not share my concern or that of the animal welfare movement and, indeed, most responsible people in the betting industry that those considerations should be taken into account.
 I hope that the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire will find it in his heart to support such a move. He thinks that I have turned into a fascist, and I suppose that he will suggest, because Hitler loved animals, that I am rapidly becoming a Nazi. However, animal welfare is a consideration, and I hope that when the Minister replies he will say that these are matters that he will give guidance on, or thought to, so that at a later stage we can adopt a more constructive approach. 
 After all, this is the stage where the views of elected Members ought to be taken into consideration. When the chairman of the commission is being appointed and the commissioner in charge is deciding who his colleagues will be, I hope that he will be able to look at these proceedings and conclude that there was a great deal of support both for a worker representative and for someone who looks after animal welfare.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: In keeping with the hon. Gentleman's new-found free-market thinking, does he not agree that the best commissioners would be people appointed on merit rather than because they are in a particular category?

Tony Banks: Merit is obviously a major consideration, but I would not agree with any suggestion that no one who represents the employees of the casino industry or one of the organisations in the animal welfare movement has merit. If I may say so to the hon. Gentleman, it is just as well that this Committee is not selected on merit because he might not be here if it were.

Richard Page: I intervene with a degree of reluctance because I realise that my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold will go to sleep immediately I start to talk.
 The hon. Member for West Ham has a curl on his forehead that is coming down, and I ask him to comb it back because it is getting quite worrying. Does he not agree that, because important Bills are being cruelly curtailed by timetables, it is not possible to go through every single aspect of all the amendments that we would like to have tabled and debated? Therefore, we require short, sharp amendments such as this to give the Minister the chance to flesh out the guidance for the commission and to respond to some perfectly logical questions. Approximately how many commissioners will there be? Are we considering drawing them from any specific areas? Will any particular qualifications be regarded as touchstones in order for their appointment to reflect the whole industry? 
 If we had more time, we could address such issues, but we are treated like charnel before the Government machine, so let us hear what the Minister has to say.

Tony Banks: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's tonsorial advice. Perhaps if I held my comb under my nose that would confirm all his deeply held suspicions about my political odyssey.
 The hon. Gentleman has a good point, however. I had to raise animal welfare issues in the way that I have because by the time I had seen the Bill and found out I was to serve on this wretched Committee—I mean this lovely Committee, Mr. Gale—it was too late for me to bring them up in another way. However, I will raise them again at a later stage, and I am grateful for having been allowed to intervene now.

Joan Humble: I rise to endorse the amendment in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Eltham (Clive Efford) and for Dagenham. It is important that we send a message to the people employed in the gambling industry. There are large numbers of them, and some of them are concerned about what effect the Bill might have on their future. They want to be confident that their voice will be heard.
 If we are to develop hotel casinos along the lines of some of those in America, and particularly Las Vegas, the voice of everybody in the industry must be heard. The Unite Here union represents chambermaids, cleaners and others involved in making the gaming experience a high-quality product.

John Whittingdale: I am moved to speak in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold. I recall that we had a lengthy debate during our consideration of the Communications Bill.
 Sitting suspended for a Division in the House . 
 On resuming—

John Whittingdale: I do not want to detain the Committee much longer. I merely want to say, in
 support of my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold, that when we were debating the Communications Bill a couple of years ago, there were several moves to have specific sectional interests represented on the board of Ofcom. The Government sensibly resisted that suggestion, and they did so for three reasons, which are particularly applicable in this instance.
 The first reason is that if specific members are identified as representing individual interests, inevitably a much narrower pool will be drawn from in appointing them. Amendment No. 128 seeks to have a commissioner representing the interests of casino employees. One assumes that that is code for saying a member of the GMB, which is clearly the major representative of those employees. Essentially that amendment would require there to be a trade union commissioner, which would be a backward step. 
 The second reason is that if one group with an interest is identified as necessitating a commissioner, every other such group will immediately demand the same treatment. The British Casino Association will want a commissioner and the Casino Operators Association will then want one; the overseas operators do. Of course, the gambling commission goes far wider than casinos, so every section of the industry will claim that they are being poorly treated unless they too have a representative on the commission. 
 The third reason is that if a responsibility is deliberately given to a commissioner to represent a particular sectional interest, they will not represent the wider interest. They will see their job as focusing particularly on the interests of that group and not on the general public good. Therefore, it is far more sensible that the commissioners be appointed on the basis of their own merit and not with specific responsibility to look after one group or another. I urge the Minister to resist the amendment.

Richard Caborn: I want to clear up a couple of points.
 On the question of the composition and the numbers, I think that everyone knows that we are going to use the Gaming Board as the core of the new gambling commission, and then build on that. There are nine members on that board. However, it will be up to the Secretary of State which of them becomes a commissioner. 
 Amendment No. 122 would impose an additional requirement on the Secretary of State to appoint commissioners who appear to represent local authorities, and amendment No. 128 relates to the interests of casino employees. As the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford said, the problem is whether a sectional interest should be represented. If one is not careful, there could then be a conflict of interest. I am sure that the Secretary of State, in replacing, or indeed in adding to, the current Gaming Board, will have due cognisance of the wider issues. 
 When I was setting up the regional development agencies and the relevant Bill was being taken through the House, we had a group core. I wanted to ensure that civil society—the constituency of the community—was represented. That could be represented by voluntary sector trade unions. Quite a 
 lot of groups come under the term ''civil society''. I believe that broad sections of society ought to be reflected in the decision making of an important body, such as the gambling commission. I am sure that the Secretary of State will take that on board. It will be good for the decision-making process. We will make it very clear that the people involved should be representative not of a particular sectional group, but of a wider constituency, which ought to impact on and influence the decision making of the commission. 
 As for people who want to represent certain interests, including local government, there is nothing to prevent them from applying for the post of commissioner. Anybody could do so. It is interesting that when one is in the process of selecting people such as commissioners or members of the boards of RDAs, one looks for people who have got wider experience and who are wearing two or three different caps, because they probably bring more wisdom. 
 As far as local authorities are concerned, the gambling commission has a duty to consult persons representing local authorities and the gambling industry when issuing its policy statement, codes of practice and guidance to local authorities. Under the process, there is need to make sure that the decision making of the commission is informed, and it has a statutory duty to consult those various sectors. That should be reflected in the quality of the commission's decisions. 
 I underline the fact that the Government have already rejected the scrutiny Committee's recommendation that we put a representative from the National Lottery Commission on the gambling commission. That was rejected as being very sectional. However, I acknowledge what the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford said: the gambling commission ought to reflect wider sections of society. With that, I hope that the hon. Member for Bath will withdraw his amendment.

Don Foster: May I share with the Committee my deep concern that the intervention of the hon. Member for Cotswold and the more recent intervention of the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford appear to cast doubt on whether Mrs. Foster will be entitled to her postcard? The hon. Member for Cotswold is not here, but I hope that he will not mind me pointing out that, during our brief suspension for the Division, he told me that if she is not entitled to a postcard, he will be more than happy to make it up to her by buying her a drink. Perhaps honour has been satisfied.
 It has been suggested that those on the Front Bench are having difficulty being heard by some sections of the Room today. If that is still the case, it is perhaps worth making absolutely clear my interpretation of what the Minister has just said. On the number of members of the gambling commission, he helpfully told us that the Government would use the existing Gaming Board as the core—that is nine people—and that he intends to add to that. I therefore confess that I have no idea how many members the commission is likely to have. [Interruption.] As he is about to intervene, perhaps he could clarify that.

Richard Caborn: There is no absolute number; I was just trying to explain that nine members will create the core of the commission. Some of those are coming up to retirement in the not-too-distant future, so there will be replacements. Who those replacements are will be a matter for the Secretary of State, who will take a view of the wider role that the commission now has. Under the Bill, it will also be within her powers to supplement the commission with other members to bring experience to the gambling commission, if she believes that that is needed. There could be replacements on the one hand and additions on the other.

Don Foster: I am grateful for that clarification, but I think that that is what I said: there will be nine, and potentially more. We still do not know how many more. Nevertheless, I am grateful for the further explanation.
 In respect of what the membership is likely to be, the Minister was less than helpful but used some very fine words. We are all grateful to hear from him that the Secretary of State will ''have due cognisance of the wider issues.'' That is enormously helpful, although we have no idea what it means. 
Mr. Caborn rose—

Don Foster: I will give way in a second.
 The Minister went on to give us a helpful sub-definition of it, by telling us that ''broad sections of civil society'' are likely to be represented. If the Minister wishes to clarify that, I would be grateful.

Richard Caborn: That is exactly the point that I was making: the gambling commission is now taking on a much wider remit than the Gaming Board had. The Secretary of State and I believe that that must be reflected in the composition of the gambling commission. Many people will be affected by the Bill in terms of employment, and the role of local authorities in gambling will be much more effective in licensing than it was before. Again, I have no doubt that the Secretary of State will have to take that on board in considering the composition of the gambling commission. I do not think that that explanation takes a lot of imagination. We are being practical about the matter.
 I mentioned—and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows about this—the composition of the regional development agencies. That formula has been used before. He may ridicule it in his presentation, but I can assure him that, if he reconsiders the record he will find that when we were considering how to set up the RDAs we had small boards of 12 to 15 representing some 5 million people, so it was difficult. We were able to consider those broad definitions of constituencies, and one that we used was that of civil society. That should not be ridiculed because the board members have worked quite well in terms of their representation on the nine regional development agencies.

Don Foster: I am grateful for that detailed intervention from the Minister, which seemed to imply that someone was ridiculing some of his earlier work. Nothing could be further from my mind. With
 the complexity of the wider interests that we now have to take into account, we are likely to have people with three or more caps, as the Minister said. [Interruption.] I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester is getting fidgety and wishes to intervene.

Bob Russell: As the Minister has said that the numbers on the board could be almost any number one could think of, does he feel that the interested sectors of society who should be represented are those who have to deal with the consequences of problem gamblers, and possibly those from Churches and others who have opposed the Bill?

Don Foster: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; he is now guilty of adding to that long list. I hope that the Minister has taken note of what he said and that in advising the Secretary of State, who we are told should have cognisance of wider interest, he will ensure that my hon. Friend's points are borne in mind.
 I think I have received some sort of semi-assurance that there might be some thinking about local government somehow fitting in somewhere, even if we are talking about someone with two hats other than a local government one.

Nick Hawkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Don Foster: No, I will not because I am sure there will be an opportunity for points to be raised later. Given the semi-quasi-possibility, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Nick Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 189, in
schedule 3, page 156, line 33, at end add— 
 Parliamentary disqualification 
 19 In Part II of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957 there shall be inserted at the appropriate point ''The Gambling Commission''.'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
 No. 193, in 
schedule 3, page 156, line 33, at end add— 
 'Disqualification from membership of Scottish Parliament 
 19 In section 15(1) of the Scotland Act 1998 (c.46) (disqualification from membership of the Parliament) there is inserted— 
 ''(ba) he is a Commissioner of the Gambling Commission,''.'.
 No. 194, in 
schedule 3, page 156, line 33, at end add— 
 'Disqualification from membership of National Assembly for Wales 
 19 In section 12(1) of the Government of Wales Act 1998 (c.38) (disqualification from being Assembly member) there is inserted— 
 ''(ba) he is a Commissioner of the Gambling Commission,''.'.

Nick Hawkins: I am really just probing, and I tabled the amendments because when I was doing research for the Committee I examined—as I am sure many hon. Members did—the main piece of legislation that the Bill will replace: the Gaming Act 1968. My attention happened to be caught by the fact that in section 10 of the 1968 Act, the first of my amendments
 appears as subsection (4). If that provision was made in the 1968 Act, I thought that we ought at least to debate whether it should be repeated in the Bill. Since that time, we have had the creation of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, so with the assistance of the Clerk I have been able to table two further amendments that match the provision.
 It is not a matter about which I feel particularly strongly, but as it was in the original Act and no reason has been given for its not being in the Bill, I wonder whether the Minister is minded to appoint sitting Members of the House, the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly to the commission. We should be told, as a certain publication frequently says, and I thought it was worth having a short debate, but I make it clear that I am probing on this matter. 
 From what the hon. Member for Bath was just saying, I thought we were going back and taking due cognisance from the days of ''solemn and binding'' when everything that was said by a previous Labour Government was based on solemn and binding commitments. The same publication that says ''Perhaps we should be told'' used to talk about a character called Solomon Binding, who was a trade unionist, not an MP. We have to consider carefully who will be on the gambling commission, and I would be grateful to hear what the Minister has to say.

Richard Caborn: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that little bit of history. I shall reflect on it when I read Hansard.
 The amendment would prevent current Members of this House, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly from being appointed as gambling commissioners. However, legislation already prevents MPs and MSPs from sitting on the Gaming Board, so the same provision will apply to the commission when it is established. No such provision exists for Members of the Welsh Assembly, because gambling is not a devolved matter. The Assembly therefore cannot make its own regulations in this respect. The Bill will not change that position, so I suggest that there is no need for the amendment. 
 The panel can also be elected in the way in which the GLA is elected, which is similarly elected under devolved functions. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Nick Hawkins: I am happy to withdraw the amendment on the basis of the Minister's assurance. I am, however, still slightly puzzled, because he stated that the disqualification will continue, but he did not explain why. Does he mean that the relevant part of the 1968 Act continues in force, or does he mean that some other piece of legislation continues the disqualification? I have not been able to find it in the Bill, so I am slightly puzzled about the basis on which he says that it will apply. I am happy to accept his word, but it would be helpful if he could clarify that.

Richard Caborn: The House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, schedule 1, part 2 covers that.

Nick Hawkins: In that case, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Schedule 3 agreed to. 
 Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Schedule 4 agreed to. 
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Watson.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Five o'clock until Tuesday 16 November at half-past Nine o'clock.